Something About Sex.

[Richard B Riddick]

Guys check out women because we're visually driven. That's why 99.999999% of porn is geared toward men. .

Both points you made are untrue, btw.

Saying men are "visually driven" is like saying men are inherently "size oriented" due to how many male gendered individuals are prone to purchasing SUV's in eras with relatively low gas prices. Its an offshoot of materialism as opposed to idealism / romanticism.

In some eras, there's a general consensus of materialism where things like appearances and tangible material qualities are considered important. In other eras, there's a general consensus of idealism / romanticism whereby things like appearances and materialism is less important than ideals.

All in all, they're only generalizations. There are undoubtedly plenty of exceptions to the rule and its not necessarily a one size fits all scientific law everyone must adhere to.

99.9% of porn caters to men because like James Brown said... Its a man's world. Men generally make the rules and set the standards and women adhere to them. Not the other way around. Look at any guy who drives a nice car or has expensive toys. In most cases the only reason he can afford those things is because he has a girlfriend or wife who saved and bought it for him.

Men aren't typically paid more than women because they're "visually driven". Its just millennia's worth of accumulated impetus and inertia in terms of men being leaders and women generally being secondary.

There are cultures where aborigines believed sticking pieces of bone through their nose made them sexier and cultures which believed women places metal rings around their necks to make them longer was the height of sexual attraction. What people view as being attractive or ideal circumstances in terms of a person's appearances is learned behavior.

Yay for being a dick and having to disagree with practically everyone.

 

[CassinoChips]

Saying men are "visually driven" is like saying men are inherently "size oriented" due to how many male gendered individuals are prone to purchasing SUV's in eras with relatively low gas prices. Its an offshoot of materialism as opposed to idealism / romanticism.

Irrelevant analogy.

In some eras, there's a general consensus of materialism where things like appearances and tangible material qualities are considered important. In other eras, there's a general consensus of idealism / romanticism whereby things like appearances and materialism is less important than ideals.

Irrelevant, as we're not discussing materialism.

All in all, they're only generalizations. There are undoubtedly plenty of exceptions to the rule and its not necessarily a one size fits all scientific law everyone must adhere to.

Of course they are generalizations. That's why I used a bullshit statistic.

99.9% of porn caters to men because like James Brown said... Its a man's world. Men generally make the rules and set the standards and women adhere to them. Not the other way around. Look at any guy who drives a nice car or has expensive toys. In most cases the only reason he can afford those things is because he has a girlfriend or wife who saved and bought it for him.

I'm glad you used a generalization after trying to disprove my statements because they were generalizations. And I'm sure you've interviewed "any guy who drives a nice car" so you can show his partner's financial standing.

Men aren't typically paid more than women because they're "visually driven". Its just millennia's worth of accumulated impetus and inertia in terms of men being leaders and women generally being secondary.

Dafuq does that have to do with porn?

There are cultures where aborigines believed sticking pieces of bone through their nose made them sexier and cultures which believed women places metal rings around their necks to make them longer was the height of sexual attraction. What people view as being attractive or ideal circumstances in terms of a person's appearances is learned behavior.

Dafuq does that have to do with porn?

Yay for being a dick and having to disagree with practically everyone.

At least you recognize it.



"Pornographic magazines and videos directed at men are a multi-billion dollar industry while similar products directed towards women are difficult to find. It is estimated that of the 40 million adults who visit pornography websites annually, 72% are male while only 28% are female (www.toptenREVIEWS.com, 2006)."

"The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images, according to a Center for Behavioral Neuroscience study led by Emory University psychologists Stephan Hamann and Kim Wallen (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm)."

Now go ahead and puke up some epistemological claptrap with no statistical basis that is completely irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread so I can delete it for being off-topic and we can move on. As per usual.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Irrelevant analogy.

"Irrelevent" because ______?

Irrelevant, as we're not discussing materialism.

Materialism is related to the topic. Prove it isn't.

Of course they are generalizations. That's why I used a bullshit statistic.

99.9% is usually not considered a "generalizing" statistic.

Its moreso associated with someone who mistakenly believes they have an overwhelming majority position.

I'm glad you used a generalization after trying to disprove my statements because they were generalizations. And I'm sure you've interviewed "any guy who drives a nice car" so you can show his partner's financial standing.

Heh.. Everything said about human behavior is a generalization.

I'm just bringing it up as you and many others don't seem to remember that, sometimes.

Dafuq does that have to do with porn?

Its a case against men being "visually driven".

Dafuq does that have to do with porn?

It shows concepts relating to "sexiness" are taught and a result of environment and upbringing moreso than base human instinct, etc.

At least you recognize it.

I don't recognize it.

I only said it to bait you(or whoever else) into admitting you can't tolerate someone disagreeing or having a different opinion from your own.

"Pornographic magazines and videos directed at men are a multi-billion dollar industry while similar products directed towards women are difficult to find. It is estimated that of the 40 million adults who visit pornography websites annually, 72% are male while only 28% are female (www.toptenREVIEWS.com, 2006)."

Now go ahead and puke up some epistemological claptrap with no statistical basis that is completely irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread so I can delete it for being off-topic and we can move on. As per usual.

I never said porn wasn't a billion dollar industry nor anything you're responding to.

My point was that porn being a billion or trillion dollar industry (worldwide) doesn't prove men are "visually driven".

It has more to do with other things..

 

[Harlequin]

Look at any guy who drives a nice car or has expensive toys. In most cases the only reason he can afford those things is because he has a girlfriend or wife who saved and bought it for him.

What kind of facts are these?!

Chances are if a guy is driving a nice car he's paid for it. I'd say women are more likely to have a nice car or house paid for them than men, but I won't say that because someone will verbally flying kick me into providing statistical evidence.

 

[Sepalcure]

Olol. I'm just wondering what cars and men and driving have aaaaanything to do with guys liking girls with make up or none at all.
Or what porn has anything to do with it for that matter.
And porn is an industry that's statistically viewed more by men than by women; doesn't mean that some of us girls don't view it every now and then.

But anyway, none of that ish has anything to do with the original topic so ... blah.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

What kind of facts are these?!

Chances are if a guy is driving a nice car he's paid for it. I'd say women are more likely to have a nice car or house paid for them than men, but I won't say that because someone will verbally flying kick me into providing statistical evidence.

One of my best friends was unemployed for a time. He had a girlfriend who worked 2 full time jobs to support them both. And, my friend cheated on her when she was at work with 5-6 different women.

Another guy I used to work with, he had a full time job and a part time job. He lost his full time job and only worked part time. Yet, he was driving a subaru impreza turbo. Pretty decent car. The only reason he could afford his car is because his girlfriend spent a large portion if not all of her cash on him.

I could cite other examples... Based on my experiences I would say these aren't isolated cases. Its pretty much the social norm.

And, I couldn't care less if people have a problem with me saying it.

If you want to argue to the contrary, be my guest.

I'm just saying that women usually cater to men in society and they usually make most sacrifices in relationships, etc.

Why shouldn't porn mirror real life?

 

[Sepalcure]

One of my best friends was unemployed for a time. He had a girlfriend who worked 2 full time jobs to support them both. And, my friend cheated on her when she was at work with 5-6 different women.

Another guy I used to work with, he had a full time job and a part time job. He lost his full time job and only worked part time. Yet, he was driving a subaru impreza turbo. Pretty decent car. The only reason he could afford his car is because his girlfriend spent a large portion if not all of her cash on him.

Anyway, based on my experiences I would say these aren't isolated cases. Its pretty much the social norm.

If you want to argue to the contrary, be my guest.

Really 'cause I mean I hate to have this delve into the realm of spam but ...

None of this has anything to do with the OP's original topic and whether men prefer women who wear make up or would rather them walk around with little to no make up at all. This is all completely irrelevant. What does social normalcy have anything to do with make up, furthermore how does this example even relate to the original topic at all?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Really 'cause I mean I hate to have this delve into the realm of spam but ...

None of this has anything to do with the OP's original topic and whether men prefer women who wear make up or would rather them walk around with little to no make up at all. This is all completely irrelevant. What does social normalcy have anything to do with make up, furthermore how does this example even relate to the original topic at all?

The idea of men being "visually driven" is akin to the concept "all men are assholes".

They give women the idea that the best they can hope for in life is a guy who is a complete asshole who also happens to be obsessed with looks and appearances. They don't really allow for exceptions and tend to be overbearing and absolutist in their views. Its just people lowering standards and trying to justify certain behavior in suggesting that "its ok, because everyone does it".

Is that related to make up and how men view women who wear make up? Yes, it is.

The real question is why you're so personally invested in this that you feel justified in pretending there is no possible explanation or link between the two simply because you aren't able to conceive of one...

 

[Sepalcure]

The idea of men being "visually driven" is akin to the concept "all men are assholes".

They give women the idea that the best they can hope for in life is a guy who is a complete asshole who also happens to be obsessed with looks and appearances. They don't really allow for exceptions and tend to be overbearing and absolutist in their views. Its just people lowering standards and trying to justify certain behavior in suggesting that "its ok, because everyone does it".

Is that related to make up and how men view women who wear make up? Yes, it is.

The real question is why you're so personally invested in this that you feel justified in pretending there is no possible explanation or link between the two simply because you aren't able to conceive of one...

Lolwut.

You make a lot of generalizations. Some women erroneously choose men who end up treating them like shit or act "like ass holes" but then that doesn't correlate to physical attractiveness. That has more to do with a woman's preference in a man and what she will allow herself to tolerate in a relationship. Separate reasons. Separate concepts. No, it's not related to how men view women who wear make up. Once again, you're making a wide berth of a generalization encompassing every man in the world. Not every man views things the way you do, your reasoning is completely subjective. Just like how I don't agree with your reasoning because I find some of them to be contrived and far-fetched and very generalized and thus steeped in falseness. Some men are ass holes. Some women get with ass holish men. Some of these women stay with these men and falsely try to change them and/or believe that they can. Some women get with guys who aren't really ass holes but still have some flaws but are otherwise all right or generally perceived as being benevolent and good. All of this is based on 1) subjectivity 2) a man or woman's individual preference 3) what aforementioned man or woman can/can not tolerate in their potential spouse/significant other 4) etc. etc. etc.

Nothing is black and white as you see it, there are shades of gray.

 

[CassinoChips]

"Irrelevent" because ______?

Because men liking SUVs and big cars/trucks has nothing to do with being sexually aroused by looking at women. Unless women come standard with a new SUV, it's irrelevant.

Materialism is related to the topic. Prove it isn't.

Materialism is a social construct relating to possession of money and things.

We're talking about the biological response to visual stimuli in male humans in regards to sexual arousal.

The two are unrelated.

99.9% is usually not considered a "generalizing" statistic.

Its moreso associated with someone who mistakenly believes they have an overwhelming majority position.

Generalization - n. 3. Logica proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.

99.9% is an "indefinite part."

Heh.. Everything said about human behavior is a generalization.

Generalizationception.

I'm just bringing it up as you and many others don't seem to remember that, sometimes.

Clearly I forgot it, even though I used a generalization. I must be some sort of generalizing savant.

Its a case against men being "visually driven".

What the hell does the gender gap in terms of paychecks have to do with a biological response when watching porn?

It shows concepts relating to "sexiness" are taught and a result of environment and upbringing moreso than base human instinct, etc.

Yes, which doesn't change the fact that there is a biological component to sexual arousal. Culture can change things slightly, but only within a homeostatic median. Not only that, but scientists can map the areas of the brain that subconsciously respond to sexual arousal. Culture refines the edges of biology. It does not dictate biological functions.

I don't recognize it.

I only said it to bait you(or whoever else) into admitting you can't tolerate someone disagreeing or having a different opinion from your own.

I can tolerate differing opinions. I can't tolerate opinion-based arguments that get passed off as factual.

I never said porn wasn't a billion dollar industry nor anything you're responding to.

My point was that porn being a billion or trillion dollar industry (worldwide) doesn't prove men are "visually driven".

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. Porn, which is created primarily by men, consumed primarily by men, and marketed primarily towards men is a visual medium. The amygdala responds more frequently and with greater intensity in males when viewing sexually stimulating material. Circumstantial evidence combined with scientific evidence. Rational human beings would take that to mean men are visually driven. The money was not the point of the quote.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

You make a lot of generalizations. Some women erroneously choose men who end up treating them like shit or act "like ass holes" but then that doesn't correlate to physical attractiveness.

You didn't respond to my point.

You only misquoted it.

That has more to do with a woman's preference in a man and what she will allow herself to tolerate in a relationship. Separate reasons. Separate concepts. No, it's not related to how men view women who wear make up. Once again, you're making a wide berth of a generalization encompassing every man in the world.

Didn't respond again.

Not every man views things the way you do, your reasoning is completely subjective.

Considering people never agree on anything, that's grasping for straws on your part.

What you're saying is like saying.. not everyone agrees on abortion, so no one can be correct about it.

Just like how I don't agree with your reasoning because I find some of them to be contrived and far-fetched and very generalized and thus steeped in falseness.

Pretty much everything said about human behavior is a generalization.

You can't dismiss something for being generalized when everything is.

Some men are ass holes. Some women get with ass holish men. Some of these women stay with these men and falsely try to change them and/or believe that they can.

Nothing is black and white as you see it, there are shades of gray.

The point is that people who are assholes try to convince others that everyone is an asshole.

They want to believe, and for others to believe, that everyone is exactly like them in order to justify their behavior.

Its the same with those who propagated the view that men are "visually driven". In most cases, they're looks and appearances obsessed individuals who want to pretend everyone is as shallow as they are.

If you quote me out of context, I may not bother replying next time.

why do you have to make pointless and irrelevant arguments out of everything?

What's pointless and irrelevent about it?

 

[Harlequin]

One of my best friends was unemployed for a time. He had a girlfriend who worked 2 full time jobs to support them both. And, my friend cheated on her when she was at work with 5-6 different women.

Another guy I used to work with, he had a full time job and a part time job. He lost his full time job and only worked part time. Yet, he was driving a subaru impreza turbo. Pretty decent car. The only reason he could afford his car is because his girlfriend spent a large portion if not all of her cash on him.

I could cite other examples... Based on my experiences I would say these aren't isolated cases. Its pretty much the social norm.

And, I couldn't care less if people have a problem with me saying it.

If you want to argue to the contrary, be my guest.

I'm just saying that women usually cater to men in society and they usually make most sacrifices in relationships, etc.

Why shouldn't porn mirror real life?

I agree with you that it happens. In fact I'll even agree that it's the social norm around here too, more often than not when two people are together and one of them is slacking it's the guy freeloading and what's worse about it is so many of these guys have no shame whatsoever (or so it seems). That said, it's usually stuff like rent, bills, food, clothes, spending money etc.. maaaaaybe a car but even then it won't be a great one. If a guy's in a nice car chances are he's earned it rather than mooched it. I wouldn't be so quick to say the same for a woman in a nice car.

Wow isn't this thread about makeup?

oops wrong thread
i think..

 

[Sepalcure]

You didn't respond to my point.

You only misquoted it.



Didn't respond again.



Considering people never agree on anything, that's grasping for straws on your part.

What you're saying is like saying.. not everyone agrees on abortion, so no one can be correct about it.



Pretty much everything said about human behavior is a generalization.

You can't dismiss something for being generalized when everything is.



The point is that people who are assholes try to convince others that everyone is an asshole.

They want to believe, and for others to believe, that everyone is exactly like them in order to justify their behavior.

Its the same with those who propagated the view that men are "visually driven". In most cases, they're looks and appearances obsessed individuals who want to pretend everyone is as shallow as they are.

If you quote me out of context, I may not bother replying next time.

What are you talking about? I quoted you word for word.

1) Yes, I did. You talked about the relation of men being visually driven creatures as being akin to men being ass holes. There's no relation to that.
I just responded to your second point which you expanded on. Maybe you should oh ... I dunno re-read my post again?

2) Uh yeah I did ... again.

3) I was stating that you present your argument in a very generalized way and present your opinion as fact. Yours opinions are not fact, they are merely opinions and not everyone is required nor will they always agree with you. Your argument is based around subjectivity, not factual evidence.

4) I didn't dismiss it. Had I dismissed it then I would've not bothered to conjure up a reply or I would've just said, "I can't be bothered to reply because your reasoning is far-fetched." This was exemplary.

5) And you know this how? Have you polled a group of people who are perceived to be "assholes" and have you come to a conclusion that they all try to indoctrinate everyone to be an "asshole" just like them? What does this have to do with men being sexually aroused by women (one of your own points from an earlier post) and what does this have to do with visual stimulation in regards to men and sexuality? Nothing. It is not the same because they are two separate concepts. A man being perceived as being an ass hole is not innate within him, it is a learned behavior that has come to be a part of his personality. A man, on the other hand, becoming aroused by the visual depiction of say, two women kissing, is intrinsic. It has biological threads and has as much to do with nature as does the act of copulation in humans and the process of mitosis. No, no, and no.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394003005652

That explains everything because I have a horrible headache and I can't be arsed to scientifically break down how the amygdalae in men process visual imagery. Plus, that's already been covered in Insanity Wolf's post. But there's enough scholarly evidence out there to dispute your claims.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Because men liking SUVs and big cars/trucks has nothing to do with being sexually aroused by looking at women. Unless women come standard with a new SUV, it's irrelevant.

Being obsessed with appearances and looks in terms of wooing the woman with the biggest tits and ass you can find isn't so different from being obsessed with owning as big a car or truck as possible. They may both be indicative of the same mentality.

Materialism is a social construct relating to possession of money and things.

We're talking about the biological response to visual stimuli in male humans in regards to sexual arousal.

The two are unrelated.

You're saying materialism can't be applied to how some view people as objects in terms of how big someones tits are...?

Generalization - n. 3. Logica proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.

99.9% is an "indefinite part."

A generalization is understood to not represent an entirety.

99.9% is pretty much that.

What the hell does the gender gap in terms of paychecks have to do with a biological response when watching porn?

I spelled it out for you.

Which part of it did you not understand?

Yes, which doesn't change the fact that there is a biological component to sexual arousal. Culture can change things slightly, but only within a homeostatic median. Not only that, but scientists can map the areas of the brain that subconsciously respond to sexual arousal. Culture refines the edges of biology. It does not dictate biological functions.

I never said there wasn't a biological component to sexual arousal.

I never said culture dictates biological functions, either.

Try responding in the correct context as opposed to trying to put words in my mouth.

I can tolerate differing opinions. I can't tolerate opinion-based arguments that get passed off as factual.

Heh.

...........

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point. Porn, which is created primarily by men, consumed primarily by men, and marketed primarily towards men is a visual medium. The amygdala responds more frequently and with greater intensity in males when viewing sexually stimulating material. Circumstantial evidence combined with scientific evidence. Rational human beings would take that to mean men are visually driven. The money was not the point of the quote.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.

Men are majority wise the largest consumer of porn.

It makes sense for producers to cater to their largest consumer demographic.

If you wanted to get technical it would comprise economics and business far more than any such pseudo-science nonsense relating to men being visually impaired or otherwise.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I agree with you that it happens. In fact I'll even agree that it's the social norm around here too, more often than not when two people are together and one of them is slacking it's the guy freeloading and what's worse about it is so many of these guys have no shame whatsoever (or so it seems). That said, it's usually stuff like rent, bills, food, clothes, spending money etc.. maaaaaybe a car but even then it won't be a great one. If a guy's in a nice car chances are he's earned it rather than mooched it. I wouldn't be so quick to say the same for a woman in a nice car.

Wow isn't this thread about makeup?

Ha. Thanks for being honest.

Its cool if you have to throw me under a bus and pretend you don't know me, though.

I'm pretty much used to it, by now...

What are you talking about? I quoted you word for word.

1) Yes, I did. You talked about the relation of men being visually driven creatures as being akin to men being ass holes. There's no relation to that.
I just responded to your second point which you expanded on. Maybe you should oh ... I dunno re-read my post again?

Alrite, well, I'll try to explain...

Theoretically speaking................. if you were a guy who was an asshole. The way you'd approach women is, you would try to convince women that all men are as much of an asshole as you are. If they believed you, then they wouldn't believe they could get a guy better than you, because they wouldn't believe that there were any in the entire world. Thus, you could dupe them into accepting you and into believing that you're the best they could get, despite the fact that you were a complete douchebag. It might sound dumb, but I've seen plenty of guys make it work.

Now, theoretically speaking, if you were a shallow person who was obsessed with looks and appearances... You'd approach women exactly the same way that guys who are assholes do. You would propagate the idea that all men are as shallow and appearances obsessed as you are.

Now, both of those examples might sound silly & you might think that no woman would ever fall for such lame hustles.

But, it happens all the time.

So, in your humble opinion, does that sound like there may be a connection between both of those things?

2) Uh yeah I did ... again.

I admitted what I said was a generalization.

You can't claim I implied my point of view was an absolute imperative when I clearly admitted it was not.

3) I was stating that you present your argument in a very generalized way and present your opinion as fact. Yours opinions are not fact, they are merely opinions and not everyone is required nor will they always agree with you. Your argument is based around subjectivity, not factual evidence.

What's wrong with a person's argument being based around subjectivity?

As long as you're a human being, it doesn't matter if you're the smartest scientist on earth or the least educated person on earth.

Everyone's views are subjective its an integral and inescapable part of being human.

Therefore to criticize on that point is an extremely poor argument.

Also, I never stated my opinion was a fact. I clearly said it was a generalization, so either you can't read or you have some type of selective memory which prevents you from remembering things accurately considering this is the second time you made that mistake.

4) I didn't dismiss it. Had I dismissed it then I would've not bothered to conjure up a reply or I would've just said, "I can't be bothered to reply because your reasoning is far-fetched." This was exemplary.

What's "far-fetched" about my reasoning?

5) And you know this how? Have you polled a group of people who are perceived to be "assholes" and have you come to a conclusion that they all try to indoctrinate everyone to be an "asshole" just like them? What does this have to do with men being sexually aroused by women (one of your own points from an earlier post) and what does this have to do with visual stimulation in regards to men and sexuality? Nothing. It is not the same because they are two separate concepts. A man being perceived as being an ass hole is not innate within him, it is a learned behavior that has come to be a part of his personality. A man, on the other hand, becoming aroused by the visual depiction of say, two women kissing, is intrinsic. It has biological threads and has as much to do with nature as does the act of copulation in humans and the process of mitosis. No, no, and no.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394003005652

That explains everything because I have a horrible headache and I can't be arsed to scientifically break down how the amygdalae in men process visual imagery. Plus, that's already been covered in Insanity Wolf's post. But there's enough scholarly evidence out there to dispute your claims.

I explained it above.

...........

If you disagree, fine.

At least try to remember I never said my views were facts.

That was you twisting things out of context to suit your own point of view....

Blah, blah..



.

 

[Harlequin]

Ha. Thanks for being honest.

Its cool if you have to throw me under a bus and pretend you don't know me, though.

I'm pretty much used to it, by now...

What do you mean pretend? I don't know you.

Maybe you've mistaken my opposition to something you said as a personal jibe and that's really not like me. You seem like an alright guy. If I disliked you we wouldn't speak.

 

[CassinoChips]

Being obsessed with appearances and looks in terms of wooing the woman with the biggest tits and ass you can find isn't so different from being obsessed with owning as big a car or truck as possible. They may both be indicative of the same mentality.

If you take it to the level of obsession, it may be. But we're not at that level here. We're talking about simple attraction.

You're saying materialism can't be applied to how some view people as objects in terms of how big someones tits are...?

I'm saying that's not the sphere of this discussion.

A generalization is understood to not represent an entirety.

99.9% is pretty much that.

Pretty much isn't an entirety. Also the dictionary apparently disagrees with you, as it states "true of all members," which is an entirety.

I spelled it out for you.

Which part of it did you not understand?

You did a terrible job explaining yourself. But I think I understand it now, after rereading it for the fourteenth time. I think what you're saying is that if men were visually driven, there would be no gender gap because men would pay attractive women more simply for being attractive. But then you argue against yourself by saying the gender gap is simply the impetus of millennia where women were secondary. Also, women who are more attractive do get paid more, and are more likely to be given/maintain a job simply based on their looks.

I never said there wasn't a biological component to sexual arousal.

I never said culture dictates biological functions, either.

Try responding in the correct context as opposed to trying to put words in my mouth.

I have to put words in your mouth because you either spout a bunch of nonsensical crap, or just say 3 words and expect people to glean your meaning from them.

So are men visually driven or not?

I said men are visually driven, you said my point is untrue. Now you're backtracking. Make up your mind.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.

Men are majority wise the largest consumer of porn.

It makes sense for producers to cater to their largest consumer demographic.

If you wanted to get technical it would comprise economics and business far more than any such pseudo-science nonsense relating to men being visually impaired or otherwise.

WHY are men the largest consumers of porn? Because they like SEEING naked women. Visually driven.

 

[The Witch]

There's a reason women read romance novels as apposed to just watching some porno. We're stimulated by OUR minds. Men are just visually stimulated, as the others said, it's why porn is consumed and aimed towards males the most.

It's not a generalization it's just... how it is.

 

[Sepalcure]

Ha. Thanks for being honest.

Its cool if you have to throw me under a bus and pretend you don't know me, though.

I'm pretty much used to it, by now...



Alrite, well, I'll try to explain...

Theoretically speaking................. if you were a guy who was an asshole. The way you'd approach women is, you would try to convince women that all men are as much of an asshole as you are. If they believed you, then they wouldn't believe they could get a guy better than you, because they wouldn't believe that there were any in the entire world. Thus, you could dupe them into accepting you and into believing that you're the best they could get, despite the fact that you were a complete douchebag. It might sound dumb, but I've seen plenty of guys make it work.

First of all, if I were a theoretical ass hole and I was confident in my douchebagerry then I personally wouldn't feel compelled to indoctrinate anyone to be like me. I wouldn't really give a flying hoot if the guys I talked to followed in my footsteps to charm every girl I deemed to be hot and or sex-able. I would be far more concerned, as a douchebag of a male specimen, with copulating with as many females as I possibly could 'cause hey life's short and I need my pleasure. And I'm a douchebag. Secondly, I'm aware that there are some men who exemplify these traits and objectify women, turning them into nothing more than objects. Yes, it can work for some unsuspecting female but still this has nothing to do with physical attractiveness; it still boils down to personality traits and that is more environmentally-tinged than it is biologically-tinged. I feel like I'm repeating my--oh wait, I am.

Now, theoretically speaking, if you were a shallow person who was obsessed with looks and appearances... You'd approach women exactly the same way that guys who are assholes do. You would propagate the idea that all men are as shallow and appearances obsessed as you are.

No, I wouldn't, hypothetically speaking. Maybe I wouldn't propagate any ideologies, if my own methods are working well to lure in men and/or women. However, this has nothing to do with your original point of men being visually driven creatures. You're going off on a tangent. Honestly, that's all I want to address, your original point, that is. [/QUOTE]

Now, both of those examples might sound silly & you might think that no woman would ever fall for such lame hustles.

But, it happens all the time.

So, in your humble opinion, does that sound like there may be a connection between both of those things?

No.

I admitted what I said was a generalization.

You can't claim I implied my point of view was an absolute imperative when I clearly admitted it was not.

Where? Quote it for me because either I'm missing something you posted or you're seeing something that you didn't type.

What's wrong with a person's argument being based around subjectivity?

There's nothing wrong with it, inherently; it just falls short due to the lack of empirical evidence to support one's claims.
There's no meat, no substance, it is merely regurgitated opinion after regurgitated opinion. It holds no weight and is therefore not a feasible argument.

As long as you're a human being, it doesn't matter if you're the smartest scientist on earth or the least educated person on earth.

Everyone's views are subjective its an integral and inescapable part of being human.

Therefore to criticize on that point is an extremely poor argument.

No, it's observing when a person's argument holds no weight because there is no factual/statistical basis of which they can make their claims from.
Basically, if you have no evidence, then how am I supposed to believe what you're stating is true? Different story.

Also, I never stated my opinion was a fact. I clearly said it was a generalization, so either you can't read or you have some type of selective memory which prevents you from remembering things accurately considering this is the second time you made that mistake.

Again, where did you say it was a generalization? Did you address it to me because I don't think you did. And you don't have to directly state your opinion as a fact, it can be interpreted as such depending on one's wording.

What's "far-fetched" about my reasoning?

None of your points are cohesive and none of them hold any factual weight. That, and a man is visually stimulated by females' bodies. This can be viewed through the visual imagery of brain activity and one can highlight the different area of the brain that are stimulated when a man is aroused to further support this claim. There is evidence of this. This however does not correlate as I and many others have stated, to a man being an asshole. Those are two different concepts that I'm trying to outline to you. That's all.

I explained it above.

...........

If you disagree, fine.

At least try to remember I never said my views were facts.

That was you twisting things out of context to suit your own point of view....

Blah, blah..

There is nothing for me to "remember" because I do not recall you having ever directly stated to me that what ever you presented was not a fact but a series of generalizations. Again, unless you did this, in which case I urge you to point it out.

 

[Big Casino]

Everyone knows porn is 99.9% aimed at men. You dont even need to explain why to know its true.